European Plan to Test Chemical Products Irks US ; the European Parliament Will Debate a Proposal to Apply the 'Precautionary Principle' to 30,000 Widely Used Chemicals

An ambitious European plan to make chemicals manufacturers test
their products for safety before selling them has industrialists and
the US government up in arms in what promises to be a major
transatlantic battle over health regulations.

The plan, which obliges producers and importers to show that
their chemicals are not harmful to consumers or the environment, has
been condemned by critics as excessively costly. Supporters say the
move is essential to protect European citizens' health against the
insidious effects of dangerous chemicals in household and other
goods.

Behind the dispute lies a growing controversy over how to measure
risk, as Europe applies ever greater precaution while US regulators
stick to more traditional cost-benefit analyses, accepting some risk
if eliminating it would be too expensive.

The European approach has already sparked dispute: Washington has
decried the European Union's 1988 ban on US beef containing growth
hormones and its five-year-old ban on new imports of genetically
modified food. Now the European Parliament is set to debate a
proposal applying the precautionary principle to 30,000 widely used
chemicals.

As sperm counts and fertility rates fall in industrialized
countries, and cancer rates rise, researchers have begun pointing
the finger at toxic chemicals found in deodorants, cosmetics, and
furnishings treated with flame retardants and stain-resistant
agents. Many of them may build up in the human body over the years,
with unknown consequences.

"It is just common sense that all chemicals should be tested and
authorized," says Jill Evans, a member of the European Parliament
who discovered recently that her blood contains 33 of the 71 toxic
chemicals she was tested for. "People think they can't be
contaminated if they are careful and live healthy lives: We know now
that chemicals we use for very good reasons do have an effect on our
bodies."

Companies that make chemicals, however, are alarmed by the
implications of the European proposal, known as the Registration,
Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). "It is too
bureaucratic and burdensome," argues Ute Jensen-Korte of the
European Chemical Industry Council. "A substance could be put on the
restricted list simply because of a suspicion" that it might be
harmful iftests raise doubts.

The US administration has lobbied hard on behalf of the US
chemical industry to make REACH less troublesome for chemicals
manufacturers, rallying European producers and some of their
governments to its cause.

A report released earlier this month by Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of
California details how the State Department and other US government
agencies "planned a wide range of actions to build opposition to
REACH." Among those actions were cables sent by US Secretary of
State Colin Powell, drawing heavily on themes developed by industry
representatives instructing US embassies to argue that REACH
"appears to be a costly, burdensome, and complex regulatory system,
which could prove unworkable in its implementation."

The report "raises very serious issues about the degree of
balance on the part of the United States," said EU spokesman Anthony
Gooch in a statement. "Important and legitimate public interest
concerns about the impact of chemicals ... just don't seem to have
been part of the US policy formulation mix."

The European commission, which drew up the legislation, says it
will cost the chemical industry some $2.4 billion over the 11 years
it will take to test and register chemicals introduced onto the EU
market before 1981. Such chemicals, amounting to 90 percent of the
total now on sale, are not currently subject to testing. The EC also
estimates that the new law would save some 4,500 lives a year and
billions in healthcare costs. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.